Joined: Feb 10, 2004 Posts: 2654 Location: I am here aint I?
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:31 am Post subject:
Billy,
First of all welcome to the board..
Second as a neophyte, may I HIGHLY and STRONGLY recommend you DO NOT READ Coddington first on GB...
I would suggest reading for Gettysburg either "A test of Courage" By Noah Andre Trudeau or (I cant believe I am saying this LOL), Stephen Sears on Gettysburg. Read Coddington after those two.
For Antietam.. Best book is Murfins Gleam of Bayonets... At least he doesnt have any bones to pick wiht either "Little Mac" or Lee..
To the post..
Antietam.. A draw... I have struggled with this one for a while. While the ANV isnt WHIPPED like it is at Gettysburg, it barely as someone noted above hangs on by its fingernails. And if Burnside had pressed his advantage after crossing the creek, well Hill is arriving to serve as a rear guard, not the "shock troops" they turned out to be.
Antietam to me is a defeat for the ANV..
BUt also the ANV is stopped cold. It will not venture norhth again for another 8 months.
Gettysburg is not a draw either .. Lee is stopped cold as well.
I Have heard both arguments that the turning points were Antietam or Gettysburg. I think both were.
I dont have time right now to share why I think this as I am at work and well they frown on me being here other then the few moments I have.
So I will post later this afternoon.
JIM _________________ "The Flag, THE FLAG, Oh THE FLAG! G.K. Warrens last words on his death bed, August 8,1882
There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell. W.T. Sherman
Joined: Feb 19, 2008 Posts: 127 Location: Overland Park, KS
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:44 pm Post subject:
grognard wrote:
Lee's agressiveness was not too much. The south wasn't winning many major battles if Lee wasn't in charge.
The same aggressiveness that beat Mcclellan and Pope led to Anteitam, and the same aggressiveness that won chancellorsville led to Gettyburg and the flank attacks at the Wilderness.
The south could not have won the 7 Days without aggressiveness, no matter who was in charge. About the only defensive battle the south won was Fredericksburg, and no major union seige ever failed, not Ft. Donaldson, nor Vicksburg, nor Petersburg, etc. etc.
So if aggressiveness is bad, what's the alternative?
Oh, I agree with you on the necessity for Lee to be aggressive but, as I said, "in some cases..." I was thinking specifically of Malvern Hill and Pettigrew's Charge (I did say I was North Carolinian didn't I? )
All in all we pretty much agree although I think you may want to add Spottsylvania Court House and Cold Harbor to the list of defensive battles that the South won. Of course, both exemplify the old saw, "Won the battle but lost the war."
Oh, I agree with you on the necessity for Lee to be aggressive but, as I said, "in some cases..." I was thinking specifically of Malvern Hill and Pettigrew's Charge (I did say I was North Carolinian didn't I? )
Billy[/quote]
Do you really want a North Carolinian to be blamed for July 3?
Do you really want a North Carolinian to be blamed for July 3?
Great point! We'll let Virginia have sole credit for that.
Billy
Right, why change the consensus now--it's a Virginain, Lee or Pickett no matter who comments. And the North Carolinians did reach as far if not further, than the Virginians.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
)
